What was standard mp3 in 2003 isn't anymore. Yeah, I've thought about it. That's about as far as I've gotten though. I saved the remastered versions of the songs for the sponsor CD, so in fairness, I'll probably keep it that way.

Let me ask you though, in those files, do you really notice a degradation in quality? I've been asking a lot of people that recently. It depends on the kind of music, but I've never noticed much of a difference between a slowly encoded 192 and a 320. Just curious.

_________________

Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:59 pm

Grand

\m/ Sponsore \m/

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:39 pmPosts: 5789Location: Oakland, CA

Re: 192 kbps mp3s, for download

The difference for my setup is mostly in the high end. Cymbals especially sound more like beatboxed impressions of cymbals at 192 compared to 320. That's the main difference to my ears.

Yeah it's always in the high end. Just wondering what you guys here. I've talked to some people that say they can hear the difference between 256 and 320 and I can't. Some 192s seem to be worse than others.

_________________

Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:19 am

capt_carl

Rank: Paragon of Red Mage Excellence

Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 8:43 pmPosts: 4968Location: New York

Re: 192 kbps mp3s, for download

If you run them through an analyzer, the differences in the highs and lows are pretty remarkable between 192 and 320. But like Grand said, it's really in the highs. At 192 they're more muted.

_________________

Trampoline Sasquatch wrote:

tapeman wrote:

Lets make like a dick and wrap it up.

The irony.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:20 am

Ben

\m/ Sponsor \m/

Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:42 amPosts: 28

Re: 192 kbps mp3s, for download

Stemage wrote:

Yeah it's always in the high end. Just wondering what you guys here. I've talked to some people that say they can hear the difference between 256 and 320 and I can't. Some 192s seem to be worse than others.

Haha, don't get me wrong I'm not an audiophile snob lol , but comparing 192 or 256 to 320, due to the high end not lost in compression, the 320 sounds more airy, more of an articulated instrument seperation, and because of the better high end, the guitars sound closer to the ears and wider. Your MM CD sounds great in FLAC, but I can't even tell the difference between mp3 320 kbps and FLAC lol

Lol cool But I think 256 kbps would be a reasonable compromise because since its so hard to tell the difference in quality between 320 and FLAC, re-encoding to 320 for the free downloads might reduce people's incentive to buy the CD. So maybe encoding to 320 isn't good for sales do you think?